Does anyone still think Kennet is such a hero ?

[Shinboners]

Originally posted by Bee

BTW the money Shinners is talking about comes from hard working taxpayers just like you will be soon. Do you really want to be like that? Do you really want to steal from the workers?

What....do you mean in the same way that the unions, Simon Crean, Steve Bracks etc. nailed their colours to the mast of the good ship (or should that be aeroplane?) Fox/Lew/Tesna?

 

[Bee]

Originally posted by Shinboners


What....do you mean in the same way that the unions, Simon Crean, Steve Bracks etc. nailed their colours to the mast of the good ship (or should that be aeroplane?) Fox/Lew/Tesna?

No of course not Shins. I mean the way Peter Reith gave his phone card to his Merchant Banker son so he could share it with all his Merchant Banker friends!

BTW you do know what Merchant Banker is rhyming slang for, don't you?

 

[Shinboners]

Originally posted by Bee

No of course not Shins. I mean the way Peter Reith gave his phone card to his Merchant Banker son so he could share it with all his Merchant Banker friends!

Well, you know....I like to share my things too. Only difference is that I actually pay for them, with my own money, first. Unlike Reith Jr, Mr. Fox and Mr. Lew.

BTW you do know what Merchant Banker is rhyming slang for, don't you?

Does it rhyme with Natasha Stott-Despoja?!??!

 

[Bee]

Originally posted by Shinboners




Does it rhyme with Natasha Stott-Despoja?!??!

What's wrong with 'Tash? She is articulate, intelligent & attractive.
The only thing I can see wrong with her is her political allegiance.

 

[Dippers Donuts]

Originally posted by Shinboners


What....do you mean in the same way that the unions, Simon Crean, Steve Bracks etc. nailed their colours to the mast of the good ship (or should that be aeroplane?) Fox/Lew/Tesna?

In the interests of preserving workers entitlements, how exactly is that a bad thing?

 

[joffa_pies4ever]

Originally posted by Dippers Donuts


In the interests of preserving workers entitlements, how exactly is that a bad thing?

Well said dipper

THE WORKERS UNITED
WILL NEVER BE DEFEATED!!

there quick to get stuck into the battling working man, actually its quite pathetic how todays society have been brainwashed to believe that any form of unionism is a bad thing....i'd hate to see where we would be now without ever having the union movement

But then again the world and its people today are thucked so why am i really suprised ?

 

[ACV]

I love reading politically based threads. It shows peoples inability to rationally assess arguments that differ to theirs. If anyone actually cared to look closely at the two major political parties in Australia they would notice that they are, esentially no different (aside from the fact that corporations tell the liberals what to do and the unions tell the ALP what to do) and have not been for quite a while now. On the political spectrum they are basically side by side in the dead center of the spectrum, if they weren't one party would win in a landslide everytime.

I find it quite interesting as to why people vote the way they do and in my experience most people don't really know why they vote the way they do (its often who their parents voted for, and even though people don't know why they really should vote for a certain party they are prepared to defend that party to the hilt. Another thing that p*sses me off is that people often don't take into account factors that effect political decisions ie Liberal voters often have scant regard for human need where as ALP voters often seem incapable of acknowlodging that running a country is now effectivly akin to running a business.

Apologies for this post really being off the topic, as it ended up in a different place to where i intended it to go (thats what you get for going out drinking and then trying to articulate a coherant argument). But i think basically what i'm trying to say is that people need to assess other peoples arguments and to try and understand where they are coming from before dismissing them just because they are different to yours

 

[ACV]

Originally posted by joffa_pies4ever


THE WORKERS UNITED
WILL NEVER BE DEFEATED!!

there quick to get stuck into the battling working man, actually its quite pathetic how todays society have been brainwashed to believe that any form of unionism is a bad thing....i'd hate to see where we would be now without ever having the union movement

But then again the world and its people today are thucked so why am i really suprised ?

The way that i see it is that unions are really outdated in todays society. I agree with you about the unions never existing, i also think that unions are a must in developing countries where working conditions are such that workers have absolutly no rights, either contractural or statutory.

However, in this day and age unions are simply disruptive and an impediment to the successful running of the country. Although having said that i think that they are very important in ensuring things like work place health and safety. Consequently, i refer to unions as a necessary evil in today society and the less power they have the better. (By the way i actually used to be in a union so i know what they are like)

Joffa are you in a union? If you dont mind me asking, which one?

 

[The Hitman]

I blame the Unions almost entirely for the grounding of Ansett Mark II. Yes, I support some unions to a certain extent, and that they are necessary, they pushed too far on this issue.

The Hitman

 

[Santos L Helper]

Originally posted by The Hitman
I blame the Unions almost entirely for the grounding of Ansett Mark II. Yes, I support some unions to a certain extent, and that they are necessary, they pushed too far on this issue.

The Hitman

examples? reasons? Come on Brett, please back up your claims.

 

[Shinboners]

Originally posted by Dippers Donuts


In the interests of preserving workers entitlements, how exactly is that a bad thing?

Firstly, Fox and Lew used the worker entitlements issue to get union backing for their package. The key issue for them were Ansett's rights at Sydney airport and the ability to make a hell of a lot of money from those rights. Once Greg Combet, Simon Crean, Steve Bracks etc. so publically aligned themselves to the Fox/Lew bid, there was no way for them to back out of it. After all, how could Combet tell his union members one day that he's backing the Tesna bid as being best for the workers, and then the next day say that he's made the wrong choice. Remember, the original plan was for 4,000 Ansett workers. It then became 3,000. And Combet, Crean etc. were very quiet on that issue. An easy win to Fox and Lew.

Onto the alternatives:

If Ansett had been liquidated back in September, then the workers would have recieved their full entitlements.

If the administrators had taken on the Patricks/Virgin offer, then Ansett would have probably remained a viable business (with Patricks taking freight, Virgin taking the domestic routes), at least 2,000 people would still have had their jobs and the rest would have received their entitlements. But of course, Patricks was not acceptable to the unions because Chris Corrigan runs Patricks.

With the Fox/Lew bid, they were only after the rights for the Sydney airport terminal. They structured Tesna into two parts - one for the terminal, one for the airline. Sydney airport wanted a guarantee that the WHOLE Fox/Lew bid would run an airline and they refused to give that guarantee. In other words, they were prepared to let Ansett die in the long term as long as they still had control of the terminals (which they could sell access rights to the various airlines). But what has happened is that Fox/Lew did not get their way (or the $1 billion worth of assistance from the government....at 3,000 jobs, that $333,3333 to give each worker a job for a couple of years when Fox/Lew really couldn't care if the airline survived or not), and the final line is that the workers will get only a few cents in the dollar of their entitlements, and even then, they won't be getting it in a lump sum.

In the end, the politics of the situation (and I'm including the federal government as well as the ALP and unions in this) destroyed any chance of the workers getting the best out of, what was, a situation that never should have arisen.

In the end, Australia is too small a market for 3 airlines. Everytime a third airline has tried to enter the market, they've failed. Throwing (taxpayer) money at a third airline won't change that fact.

 

[Shinboners]

Originally posted by Bee


What's wrong with 'Tash? She is articulate, intelligent & attractive.
The only thing I can see wrong with her is her political allegiance.

She's all fluff and no substance.

And something about fairies (or was it pixies?) at the end of the garden.....

 

[Dippers Donuts]

Originally posted by Shinboners


Firstly, Fox and Lew used the worker entitlements issue to get union backing for their package. The key issue for them were Ansett's rights at Sydney airport and the ability to make a hell of a lot of money from those rights. Once Greg Combet, Simon Crean, Steve Bracks etc. so publically aligned themselves to the Fox/Lew bid, there was no way for them to back out of it. After all, how could Combet tell his union members one day that he's backing the Tesna bid as being best for the workers, and then the next day say that he's made the wrong choice. Remember, the original plan was for 4,000 Ansett workers. It then became 3,000. And Combet, Crean etc. were very quiet on that issue. An easy win to Fox and Lew.

Onto the alternatives:

If Ansett had been liquidated back in September, then the workers would have recieved their full entitlements.

If the administrators had taken on the Patricks/Virgin offer, then Ansett would have probably remained a viable business (with Patricks taking freight, Virgin taking the domestic routes), at least 2,000 people would still have had their jobs and the rest would have received their entitlements. But of course, Patricks was not acceptable to the unions because Chris Corrigan runs Patricks.

With the Fox/Lew bid, they were only after the rights for the Sydney airport terminal. They structured Tesna into two parts - one for the terminal, one for the airline. Sydney airport wanted a guarantee that the WHOLE Fox/Lew bid would run an airline and they refused to give that guarantee. In other words, they were prepared to let Ansett die in the long term as long as they still had control of the terminals (which they could sell access rights to the various airlines). But what has happened is that Fox/Lew did not get their way (or the $1 billion worth of assistance from the government....at 3,000 jobs, that $333,3333 to give each worker a job for a couple of years when Fox/Lew really couldn't care if the airline survived or not), and the final line is that the workers will get only a few cents in the dollar of their entitlements, and even then, they won't be getting it in a lump sum.

In the end, the politics of the situation (and I'm including the federal government as well as the ALP and unions in this) destroyed any chance of the workers getting the best out of, what was, a situation that never should have arisen.

In the end, Australia is too small a market for 3 airlines. Everytime a third airline has tried to enter the market, they've failed. Throwing (taxpayer) money at a third airline won't change that fact.

Simplistic nonsense. Combet and the unions bought into the Tesna plan for one reason only - a continuation of employment for the 3000 Ansett workers. Lew and Fox gave endless assurances to the unions that their plan was viable, who was the ACTU to disbelieve them.

As for Combet, Creans etc backing for the Tesna plan, could you realistically expect them to have done otherwise? In theory it was a sensible plan. They did NOTHING wrong, all blame should be sheeted to Lew and Fox.

Your alternatives are also naive. Corrigin? Pigs arse (to quote Sir Jack). Only interested in the terminal rights, has no idea about running a low lost airline for the masses. He is not concerned about a third airline, he simply wants to maximise terminal revenues - and you are a fan of this miscreant?

The Patrick/Virgin proposal was never realistic, only considered by the deluded like yourself.

Vale Ansett, a low cost third carrier is possible in Australia, ye gods, only good management is required.

 

[Shinboners]

Originally posted by Dippers Donuts

Simplistic nonsense. Combet and the unions bought into the Tesna plan for one reason only - a continuation of employment for the 3000 Ansett workers. Lew and Fox gave endless assurances to the unions that their plan was viable, who was the ACTU to disbelieve them.

And now there won't be any Ansett workers with a job. I have no doubt with the ACTU's motivation...that is, the preservation of jobs. But what I do have a problem with was the whole politicisation of the process, especially with the Federal election that was happening at the time.

The other thing about the plan was that Fox and Lew only started it in September 2001 once Ansett had appointed the (original) PriceWaterhouseCoopers administrators. Corrgian had been planning for as early as March (?!??) 2001 as by then, Ansett's problems were well and truly being reported in the financial press and Corrigan anticipated that Ansett would eventually collapse. So Corrigan had at least a 6 month head start with planning. In fact, Fox/Lew's planning was so flawed that they tried to get Virgin involved in their bid during January 2002.

As for Combet, Creans etc backing for the Tesna plan, could you realistically expect them to have done otherwise? In theory it was a sensible plan. They did NOTHING wrong, all blame should be sheeted to Lew and Fox.

You make the point below that Corrigan had no idea on how to run an airline. What makes you think that Lew and Fox had any better idea than Corrigan? At least with Corrigan, he would have been working with Virgin Airlines. And I can't see why Lew and Fox should get all the blame when it was the unions who pursued them.

Your alternatives are also naive. Corrigin? Pigs arse (to quote Sir Jack). Only interested in the terminal rights, has no idea about running a low lost airline for the masses. He is not concerned about a third airline, he simply wants to maximise terminal revenues - and you are a fan of this miscreant?

But unlike Fox and Lew, Corrigan did not hide his true intentions. He wanted Ansett for their air freight capabilities...it would have fitted in well with his stevedoring operations and now his rail operations. As for the passenger service, that would have gone to Virgin Airlines. Corrigan knew what he was doing and how to fit it into his business. Fox and Lew didn't. In the end, Corrigan has a good chance of getting the Sydney terminal access and/or the Ansett freight services for much less than what he would have paid had his original proposal been accepted.

As for you other question, yes, I am a fan of Corrigan. As someone who works in a business that has to deal with the docks, getting goods in and out of the country has become so much easier since the Patricks dispute.

The Patrick/Virgin proposal was never realistic, only considered by the deluded like yourself.

As I've pointed out above, Corrigan knew how the Ansett operations would fit into his business. Fox and Lew were effectively starting from scratch. Which one is more realistic?

Vale Ansett, a low cost third carrier is possible in Australia, ye gods, only good management is required.

I wish a low cost third carrier was possible, but there have been four attempts (Compass, Compass 2, Impulse, and Virgin). The first three all failed and the fourth, Virgin, killed off Ansett. Surely it can't be all due to bad management? A more likely reason is that we just don't have the air traffic to sustain a profitable 3rd airline.

 

[Voice of Reason]

Originally posted by Shinboners


Firstly, Fox and Lew used the worker entitlements issue to get union backing for their package. The key issue for them were Ansett's rights at Sydney airport and the ability to make a hell of a lot of money from those rights. Once Greg Combet, Simon Crean, Steve Bracks etc. so publically aligned themselves to the Fox/Lew bid, there was no way for them to back out of it. After all, how could Combet tell his union members one day that he's backing the Tesna bid as being best for the workers, and then the next day say that he's made the wrong choice. Remember, the original plan was for 4,000 Ansett workers. It then became 3,000. And Combet, Crean etc. were very quiet on that issue. An easy win to Fox and Lew.

Onto the alternatives:

If Ansett had been liquidated back in September, then the workers would have recieved their full entitlements.

If the administrators had taken on the Patricks/Virgin offer, then Ansett would have probably remained a viable business (with Patricks taking freight, Virgin taking the domestic routes), at least 2,000 people would still have had their jobs and the rest would have received their entitlements. But of course, Patricks was not acceptable to the unions because Chris Corrigan runs Patricks.

With the Fox/Lew bid, they were only after the rights for the Sydney airport terminal. They structured Tesna into two parts - one for the terminal, one for the airline. Sydney airport wanted a guarantee that the WHOLE Fox/Lew bid would run an airline and they refused to give that guarantee. In other words, they were prepared to let Ansett die in the long term as long as they still had control of the terminals (which they could sell access rights to the various airlines). But what has happened is that Fox/Lew did not get their way (or the $1 billion worth of assistance from the government....at 3,000 jobs, that $333,3333 to give each worker a job for a couple of years when Fox/Lew really couldn't care if the airline survived or not), and the final line is that the workers will get only a few cents in the dollar of their entitlements, and even then, they won't be getting it in a lump sum.

In the end, the politics of the situation (and I'm including the federal government as well as the ALP and unions in this) destroyed any chance of the workers getting the best out of, what was, a situation that never should have arisen.

In the end, Australia is too small a market for 3 airlines. Everytime a third airline has tried to enter the market, they've failed. Throwing (taxpayer) money at a third airline won't change that fact.

Hey Dip,

You called this simplistic nonsense - I reckon it's pretty damn close to the mark.

I reckon Australia is actually a one and a half airline country - and I don't see that changing without massive immigration. A niche like Virgin might go all right and regional airlines ditto. We should use the international airlines, which often have a lot of spare capacity internally, more creatively.

Ansett and (even more so) Air New Zealand were appallingly managed, but it's hard to make it work here and it is difficult for good management to admit when thet're trying to make the unworkable work. I was interested to see that ASIC are not going to prosecute the directors for insolvent trading as there is no case.

In terms of blame, I blame the unholy alliance of Fox, Lew, the administrators and the unions, which was spiced up even further by the media and the understandable wishful thinking of all concerned. Of those parties, I think Fox and Lew acted the most selfishly - the others were either doing their job or trying to do the best for other people.

 

[Theoden]

There is far too much depth in the matter to put it all on one post.
Bu here's a simplistic view.

Why did Ansett go under in the first place?

It is easy to say 'bad management', and it would be true. But were the management ever allowed to manage? The root cause was that Ansett was massively overencumbered with costs. These costs were a direct result of affordability created by the collusion betwen Ansett and Qantas and were paid for by the public exhorbitant air fares. Deregulation, and in particular Compass, broke that partnership and Ansett nearly went under over a decade ago because of it. Qantas was protected by international routes that buffered the local price war.
Strike after strike had resulted in costs increasing as management chose capitulation rather than suffer strike action and immediate revenue loss. An example is redundancy pay. negotiated to 4 weeks for every year worked. Agreement to that had no immediate effect on profitability as such costs are not provided for in accounts. However, look at the dilemma future management would have due to that agreement. A loss making part of Ansett perhaps should be closed but the cost of redundancy may make such a huge profit hit that the management is forced to keep going with the loss making part. And as the financial position gets more precarious the threat of a strike is a threat to bring the company over the precipice and so management is forced to capitulate........a slippery slope but perhaps it can be seen that the unions have controlled the destiny of Ansett since deregulation.

Tesna......Fox/Lew

Have they any experience of running airlines? No. So why would they commit so much money to buying Ansett? The answer is simple. They didn't want Ansett. They wanted the terminals and the freight business. That industry they are good at. Ansett as a flying concern......plan one: a deal with Virgin Blue plan2: sell it off to Singapore airlines or another buyer. Interim: Offset the losses with the profit from the airports/freight etc. and squeeze as much out of the government as possible.
Let's face it, why did Tesna need the terminal leases to fly. Virgin, Compass etc had no leases. International airlines have no leases. All it needs is an agreement on landing rights and use of terminal space,,,,,,,,,,,but Fox/Lew didn't want the albatross without the crown of jewels.

The Future

Ansett died many months ago, its passenger numbers in the past three months were meaningless. Virgin Blue and Qantas have the market and Virgin Blue will erode the market share of Qantas because of it's preferable attitude to customers. Virgin or a new player will arise to challenge Qantas for corporate business. And in time niche operations, similar to Ryanair, will be introduced with airfares lower than anyone can imagine. In time Qantas will be forced to reduce costs by confronting the unions or go the way of Ansett, the unions are already trying to manipulate Virgin workers to re-establish control over the industry for fear of just that.

 

[Shinboners]

Here's an excerpt from an article (Ansetts Unholy Alliance by Stephen Long) in this weekend's Australian Financial Review. Now tell me, are the unions still free of blame of the Ansett fiasco?

"From the outset, the unions' agenda was one that puzzled some who worked in the staid realm of accountancy: virtually at any cost, get the airline backin business ans save the jobs. Initially at least, it was the union bosses, not insolvency experts, who decided whether perspective buyers had the right stuff and, just as importantly, the right intentions.

And they were willing to use their muscle, as Hedge discovered. Four days after Ansett collapsed, unions forced him and his team from PricewaterhouseCoopers to resign as administrators. Allegedly, they were ousted because of a conflict of interest stemming from PwC's role as auditor of Air New Zealand, which owned Ansett and was blamed by the unions for Ansett's demise. While there is no doubt that perceived conflict of interest was a factor - anger and hostility towards Air New Zealand was at a boling point. Such conflicts abound in the professions - Andersen, which the ACTU installed in place of the dumped firm, act as corporate auditor for Fox and Premier Investments, owned by Lew. PwC's decision to ground Ansett's aircraft was the real reason it was dumped. Unions wer furious at the decision, taken at 2am a day into the administration, which key leaders read as a signal that Hedge wanted to swiftly liquidate the airline.

Unions chose Mark Mentha and Mark Korda of Andersen because, in the words of Australian Workers Union secretary Bill Shorten, "they were seen as insolvency doctors who tried to keep companies alive". Shorten and a Melbourne labour lawyer who gained notoriety during the docks dispute, Josh Bornstein of Maurice Blackburn Cashman, were pivotal in the dumping of PwC and bring in Andersen. Both had worked with the two Marks and were impressed by their efforts to save companies, including the textiles group Bradmill Undare where 35% of the workforce kept their jobs; and Pelaco, where 50% of jobs were saved; and music retailer Brashs where 8 in 10 kept jobs.

But as time went on, high level Andersen partners became disturbed at the apparent closeness between the administrators and the unions. Andersen insiders say that Chris Knoblanche, a senior partner, was horrified when he read that his colleagues were feted as heroes at an ACTU dinner by unionists who fell to their knees before the two Marks, bowing and chanting, "we are not worthy".

Virgin Blue's CEO, Brett Godfrey, tried to woo Ansett's unsecured creditors, and further his ambition to push aside Tesna and buy Ansett's valuable terminals in coalition with Corrigan, by criticising the closeness between the unions and the administrators. The Marks, to loud applause from the unions, quipped that they, "didn't need a Virgin to come in and show them how to doe the job". Fox dropped his dacks and declared that Corrigan could kiss his arse. More and more, it seemed that the Ansett battle was about mates: you were either mates with the unions or mates with the government."

So there you have it. The unions selected the buyer of Ansett (Fox/Lew) and the seller of Ansett (the Two Marks from Andersens). The sale was a closed shop, it collapsed, and for that alone, the ACTU has to take their share of the blame. Furthermore, they ignored the only serious buyers for Ansett in the market, Virgin Blue and Patricks Corporation, and the final result was that they screwed over the very people (the Ansett workers) that they were trying to protect.

 

[ACV]

Originally posted by Shinboners
and the final result was that they screwed over the very people (the Ansett workers) that they were trying to protect.

And this comes as a suprise to anyone?

 

[Dippers Donuts]

Originally posted by Shinboners


And now there won't be any Ansett workers with a job. I have no doubt with the ACTU's motivation...that is, the preservation of jobs. But what I do have a problem with was the whole politicisation of the process, especially with the Federal election that was happening at the time.

The other thing about the plan was that Fox and Lew only started it in September 2001 once Ansett had appointed the (original) PriceWaterhouseCoopers administrators. Corrgian had been planning for as early as March (?!??) 2001 as by then, Ansett's problems were well and truly being reported in the financial press and Corrigan anticipated that Ansett would eventually collapse. So Corrigan had at least a 6 month head start with planning. In fact, Fox/Lew's planning was so flawed that they tried to get Virgin involved in their bid during January 2002.



You make the point below that Corrigan had no idea on how to run an airline. What makes you think that Lew and Fox had any better idea than Corrigan? At least with Corrigan, he would have been working with Virgin Airlines. And I can't see why Lew and Fox should get all the blame when it was the unions who pursued them.



But unlike Fox and Lew, Corrigan did not hide his true intentions. He wanted Ansett for their air freight capabilities...it would have fitted in well with his stevedoring operations and now his rail operations. As for the passenger service, that would have gone to Virgin Airlines. Corrigan knew what he was doing and how to fit it into his business. Fox and Lew didn't. In the end, Corrigan has a good chance of getting the Sydney terminal access and/or the Ansett freight services for much less than what he would have paid had his original proposal been accepted.

As for you other question, yes, I am a fan of Corrigan. As someone who works in a business that has to deal with the docks, getting goods in and out of the country has become so much easier since the Patricks dispute.



As I've pointed out above, Corrigan knew how the Ansett operations would fit into his business. Fox and Lew were effectively starting from scratch. Which one is more realistic?



I wish a low cost third carrier was possible, but there have been four attempts (Compass, Compass 2, Impulse, and Virgin). The first three all failed and the fourth, Virgin, killed off Ansett. Surely it can't be all due to bad management? A more likely reason is that we just don't have the air traffic to sustain a profitable 3rd airline.

And now there won't be any Ansett workers with a job. I have no doubt with the ACTU's motivation...that is, the preservation of jobs. But what I do have a problem with was the whole politicisation of the process, especially with the Federal election that was happening at the time

So you blame the ACTU for the loss of jobs? As I said before the ACTU did the only thing they could have done and that was to support continuity of employment rather than a termination payment. That is their role in life. They can not be criticised for that.

The other thing about the plan was that Fox and Lew only started it in September 2001 once Ansett had appointed the (original) PriceWaterhouseCoopers administrators. Corrgian had been planning for as early as March (?!??) 2001 as by then, Ansett's problems were well and truly being reported in the financial press and Corrigan anticipated that Ansett would eventually collapse. So Corrigan had at least a 6 month head start with planning. In fact, Fox/Lew's planning was so flawed that they tried to get Virgin involved in their bid during January 2002.

So how do you explain your statement above in light of the fact that the Corrigin bid was received AFTER the Lew/Fox bid was accepted by the administrators?

You make the point below that Corrigan had no idea on how to run an airline. What makes you think that Lew and Fox had any better idea than Corrigan? At least with Corrigan, he would have been working with Virgin Airlines. And I can't see why Lew and Fox should get all the blame when it was the unions who pursued them.

It is in the public record that Lew/Fox romanced the unions. Why? Probably because they realised that the payouts after the fact would have been too prohibitive. As for Corrigin's efforts to run an airline, don't make me laugh, he runs balance sheets first and foremost, people are a distant second.

As for you other question, yes, I am a fan of Corrigan. As someone who works in a business that has to deal with the docks, getting goods in and out of the country has become so much easier since the Patricks dispute.

Fan of jackboots and balaclavas are you?

As I've pointed out above, Corrigan knew how the Ansett operations would fit into his business. Fox and Lew were effectively starting from scratch. Which one is more realistic?

Corrigin knew how to maximise profit from the maintainance and terminal operations, nothing to do with running an airline.
Fox and Lew may have been starting from scratch, at least with union support one could imagine the poor old Ansett worker may have stood a chance. Corrigin has never given a fat rats about the worker, to him it's all dollars and cents, dry economics. For that, this eejit is admired by like minded souls.

I wish a low cost third carrier was possible, but there have been four attempts (Compass, Compass 2, Impulse, and Virgin). The first three all failed and the fourth, Virgin, killed off Ansett. Surely it can't be all due to bad management? A more likely reason is that we just don't have the air traffic to sustain a profitable 3rd airline.

A third airline is feasible. If it wasn't why are there repeated attempts to crack this market? It will happen again (ie another player will enter the market) although I would suggest that initially some luck is needed (in terms of fuel prices, world economic conditions etc). Australia is a jewel of an air transport market, 1-2 carriers, growth economy etc.Qantas may be a fierce competitor but they are by no means unbeatable.

 

[Theoden]

The only reason that ACTU backed Tesna is that the 4000 employees were union loyalists and most of their inflated conditions were to be kept. The Corrigan/Virgin offer was the only long term credible one but workers would have been put on new contracts the same as the other Virgin employees and the ACTU could not stomach that.

But what is bugging me about Ansett is that it highlights an apalling deficiency in accounting standards. Companies have to make provisions in their accounts for accrued leave where it is payable. That is fair enough because it is a true liability. But what about redundancy pay? Most companies are at one week per year of employment and average wages are reasonably low enough for it not to make a huge difference. But look at Ansett when it went under, 18,000 employees on an average $90,000 a year, 4 weeks pay per year and an average of 5 years service. Quick calculation $623Million not shown as a liability. Now if that had been shown on the books many, many companys would not have given credit to Ansett. So I belive the standards need revising to show this real liability.

 

[Pessimistic]

Sadly this ansett thing has become a very political thing with TESNA/FOX/LEW/ACTU/ALP on one side and CORRIGAN/LIBS/Herald sun on the other. so the 'truth' may never come out.

Watch this space for the hun to announce corrigan to come in as a white night and how wonderful he is.

 

[Shinboners]

Originally posted by Dippers Donuts

So you blame the ACTU for the loss of jobs? As I said before the ACTU did the only thing they could have done and that was to support continuity of employment rather than a termination payment. That is their role in life. They can not be criticised for that.

I never put all the blame for the loss of jobs on the ACTU. As I posted earlier, I do understand their intentions. However, as someone once said, the road to hell is paved with good intentions, and they made the wrong choice. Compounding their error, they vetoed the Virgin/Patricks proposal.

So how do you explain your statement above in light of the fact that the Corrigin bid was received AFTER the Lew/Fox bid was accepted by the administrators?

Corrigan is a shrewd operator, who shortly after his bid was rejected, commented that "this game isn't over yet". I can only speculate on Corrigan's timing, but I think he would've realised that once the ACTU got control of the administration process, his bid would be rejected regardless of merit. Perhaps knowing this, he decided to wait to see what Fox and Lew came up with, see whether he could improve his own proposal, and then put pressure on the administrators by trying to trump the bid after the "acceptance" of the Fox/Lew bid.

As anyone who has watched the process of administration, or indeed the takeover battles of recent years (Rio Tinto vs Anglo-American for North Ltd. and later Argyle Diamonds were two very interesting battles) knows that deadlines are a flexible thing.

It is in the public record that Lew/Fox romanced the unions. Why? Probably because they realised that the payouts after the fact would have been too prohibitive. As for Corrigin's efforts to run an airline, don't make me laugh, he runs balance sheets first and foremost, people are a distant second.

Perhaps if the people who were running Ansett concentrated on their balance sheet too, we'd still have that airline in the sky. And why do you think Fox and Lew pulled out? They knew that their own numbers wouldn't add up. So it's pretty churlish to have a go at Corrigan for keeping his own numbers within a degree of financial viability (after all, we don't want anymore HIH style disasters, do we?).

As for the romance, it's also on the public records that the unions rang around various potential buyers (except for Patricks) including Fox and Lew. As it turned out, Fox and Lew were preparing their own bids and it was the unions that suggested that the two of them get together (as reported in the Australian Financial Review).

Fan of jackboots and balaclavas are you?

As I've said earlier, I work in an industry that has to deal with the docks. If you want thuggery, try the docks pre-Patricks.

Corrigin knew how to maximise profit from the maintainance and terminal operations, nothing to do with running an airline.
Fox and Lew may have been starting from scratch, at least with union support one could imagine the poor old Ansett worker may have stood a chance. Corrigin has never given a fat rats about the worker, to him it's all dollars and cents, dry economics. For that, this eejit is admired by like minded souls.

You're concentrating on Corrigan and totally ignoring the Virgin Blue part of his proposal. We all know that Corrigan wanted the terminals plus the air freight operations with the travelling and tourism going to Virgin Blue.

And yes, Corrigan does concentrate on the dollars and cents. But the reality is that a business cannot work unless a profit is made.

A third airline is feasible. If it wasn't why are there repeated attempts to crack this market? It will happen again (ie another player will enter the market) although I would suggest that initially some luck is needed (in terms of fuel prices, world economic conditions etc). Australia is a jewel of an air transport market, 1-2 carriers, growth economy etc.Qantas may be a fierce competitor but they are by no means unbeatable.

I wish I could be as optimistic as you, but I don't think we'll see a third airline until Australia gets a larger population.

You and I aren't going to agree on any of this. Please understand that I don't put all the blame on the unions....the government, the ALP, Qantas, the NZ government, all had a role in destroying Ansett. I just believe that something could have been salvaged if the Patricks/Virgin Blue bid had been accepted.

 

[Shinboners]

Originally posted by Theoden
But what is bugging me about Ansett is that it highlights an apalling deficiency in accounting standards. Companies have to make provisions in their accounts for accrued leave where it is payable. That is fair enough because it is a true liability. But what about redundancy pay? Most companies are at one week per year of employment and average wages are reasonably low enough for it not to make a huge difference. But look at Ansett when it went under, 18,000 employees on an average $90,000 a year, 4 weeks pay per year and an average of 5 years service. Quick calculation $623Million not shown as a liability. Now if that had been shown on the books many, many companys would not have given credit to Ansett. So I belive the standards need revising to show this real liability.

I don't think the accounting standards need to be tightened. And anyway, there are so many loopholes that plenty of things can be hidden in a set of accounts.

What needs to be strengthened is the law. If the government can compel all companies to pay money into their workers superannuation accounts, then surely it can't be that difficult to change the law so that all worker entitlements are paid into a trust account with the money being paid out when a company goes bust or the employee leaves the company.

 

[Pessimistic]

Originally posted by Shinboners


I don't think the accounting standards need to be tightened. And anyway, there are so many loopholes that plenty of things can be hidden in a set of accounts.

What needs to be strengthened is the law. If the government can compel all companies to pay money into their workers superannuation accounts, then surely it can't be that difficult to change the law so that all worker entitlements are paid into a trust account with the money being paid out when a company goes bust or the employee leaves the company.

Sounds good to me.

 

[Dippers Donuts]

Originally posted by Shinboners
I never put all the blame for the loss of jobs on the ACTU. As I posted earlier, I do understand their intentions. However, as someone once said, the road to hell is paved with good intentions, and they made the wrong choice. Compounding their error, they vetoed the Virgin/Patricks proposal.

Given Corrigin's previous union 'dealings' one can understand any reticence on their part in dealing with him. They made no real error rejecting the patricks proposal, by that stage they had already agreed to back the Fox/Lew consortium.

As anyone who has watched the process of administration, or indeed the takeover battles of recent years (Rio Tinto vs Anglo-American for North Ltd. and later Argyle Diamonds were two very interesting battles) knows that deadlines are a flexible thing.

To a point true, in the Ansett case Corrigin/Patrick though had plenty of time to get their offer in earlier. Part of the Corrigin 'blowtorch to the belly' style of management I suppose.

Perhaps if the people who were running Ansett concentrated on their balance sheet too, we'd still have that airline in the sky. And why do you think Fox and Lew pulled out? They knew that their own numbers wouldn't add up. So it's pretty churlish to have a go at Corrigan for keeping his own numbers within a degree of financial viability (after all, we don't want anymore HIH style disasters, do we?).

No one doubts Ansett cocked it up big time, that's not at issue here. Why did Fox and Lew pull out? Probably because the govt. failed to cough up the support they needed. Also Fox and Lew weren't prepared to spend any of their own money (ie assume any risk). As I have said before Fox/Lew deserve most of the blame here. I am also saying that Corrigin is not the white knight here.

As for the romance, it's also on the public records that the unions rang around various potential buyers (except for Patricks) including Fox and Lew. As it turned out, Fox and Lew were preparing their own bids and it was the unions that suggested that the two of them get together (as reported in the Australian Financial Review).

Fox and Lew getting together made considerable sense at the time, without them pooling their 'resources' they had no hope of achieving anything. As for the Fin Review, it's not a bad read, good for share news etc, but when it comes to political comment I treat what they say with healthy skepticism.

As I've said earlier, I work in an industry that has to deal with the docks. If you want thuggery, try the docks pre-Patricks

And if you wanted thuggery on a massive scale, try the docks during the waterfron dispute. As someone once said you can't have an ommelette without breaking a few eggs.

And yes, Corrigan does concentrate on the dollars and cents. But the reality is that a business cannot work unless a profit is made.

That's obvious, I just wish Corrigin would view the workforce as an asset, not as a liability where costs can reduced. He seems to be from the Al Dunlap slash and burn school of managment. Sure it in theory can 'work' but there continually seems to be a terrible price to pay.

I wish I could be as optimistic as you, but I don't think we'll see a third airline until Australia gets a larger population.

We'll see, my feeling is within twelve months somebody else will have a crack at it. Time wil tell.

You're concentrating on Corrigan and totally ignoring the Virgin Blue part of his proposal. We all know that Corrigan wanted the terminals plus the air freight operations with the travelling and tourism going to Virgin Blue.

Virgin was part of his plan only because the law says that airport leases must be maintained by an actual airline carrier.

You and I aren't going to agree on any of this. Please understand that I don't put all the blame on the unions....the government, the ALP, Qantas, the NZ government, all had a role in destroying Ansett. I just believe that something could have been salvaged if the Patricks/Virgin Blue bid had been accepted.

Fair enough to that, although I am not convinced as you seem to be of the merits of the Corrigin/Virgin (there, I said it) proposal. We'll probably never know I suppose, whilst it is still on the table it would require considerable re-working given Virgins vastly improved prospects since the Ansett crash.